Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Not exactly...it's an aircraft delivery (event based) as well as time based ratio. If management never buys another 76 seater, then the ratio doesn't come into play. If they buy all 70 allowable, then they have to have 88 small narrowbody aircraft on the property, 125 50 seaters left, and a max of 450 total DCI left. Then they do the ratio and ensure that for every block hour DCI flies mainline has at least 1.56. It's planned to be over 1.7.
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
It's almost comical the way this is unrolling. Bar called it, 717s if you sign off on bigger lower casm 76 seaters.
But the problem with the carrot is everyone looks around and says won't the 717s come anyways? And if not, are we better off? A giant order of 76 seaters sure makes you scratch your head wondering if we're supposed to say yes to 76 seaters that replace mainline jets and 717s that just replacement jets. Is it best just to say no and stick to 255 and the current fleet?
Sailing, is there a wb order on the way? That's been rumored before too.
But the problem with the carrot is everyone looks around and says won't the 717s come anyways? And if not, are we better off? A giant order of 76 seaters sure makes you scratch your head wondering if we're supposed to say yes to 76 seaters that replace mainline jets and 717s that just replacement jets. Is it best just to say no and stick to 255 and the current fleet?
Sailing, is there a wb order on the way? That's been rumored before too.
Don't get me started on 777-300's once we get our balance sheet fixed by flipping leases and capacity purchase contract modifications. I have not finished that homework yet.
Banned
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
From: Space Shuttle PIC
Thank you. Bar's source is himself, DOT data and a calculator. Figure out the numbers and you know where management's looking. In any defense play, watch the eyes.
Don't get me started on 777-300's once we get our balance sheet fixed by flipping leases and capacity purchase contract modifications. I have not finished that homework yet.
Don't get me started on 777-300's once we get our balance sheet fixed by flipping leases and capacity purchase contract modifications. I have not finished that homework yet.
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Bill,
Something is happening in that space (120 seats) with, or without, passage of this TA. The difference is whether we want to go forward under our current contract with 3 to 1 language. The addition of 88 jets if done tomorrow would be close to a wash on new CRJ900's. The TA makes it less painful to restructure DCI, but it will happen regardless... perhaps slower and with more debt which stalls financing of other needed replacements for mainline.
Today's announcement should have been last Thursday at the Bank America presentation. Do not know why the timing has been so awkward.
Something is happening in that space (120 seats) with, or without, passage of this TA. The difference is whether we want to go forward under our current contract with 3 to 1 language. The addition of 88 jets if done tomorrow would be close to a wash on new CRJ900's. The TA makes it less painful to restructure DCI, but it will happen regardless... perhaps slower and with more debt which stalls financing of other needed replacements for mainline.
Today's announcement should have been last Thursday at the Bank America presentation. Do not know why the timing has been so awkward.
Just some thoughts about scope-- that by allowing more 76 seat jets on the property, we are doing several detrimental things to ourselves.
#1. We are giving away our jobs, and once they are gone, they aren't ever coming back.
#2. We are permitting the creation and perpetuation of a sub-class of professionals who will do the same job for much less compensation and contractual protections.
#3. We are allowing, once again, the line to be drawn further down the field, keeping momentum on the side of outsourcing.
#4. We are permitting to exist an airline within an airline that is possibly going to be over half the size of SWA-- flying our pax.
#5. We are telling the company, the other airlines, and the world that we will sell our own jobs for a few bucks today, that we are for sale, and we can be had.
#6. We are turning our backs on what is very likely the only chance we will ever collectively have industry wide to put the scope genie back in the bottle.
#1. We are giving away our jobs, and once they are gone, they aren't ever coming back.
#2. We are permitting the creation and perpetuation of a sub-class of professionals who will do the same job for much less compensation and contractual protections.
#3. We are allowing, once again, the line to be drawn further down the field, keeping momentum on the side of outsourcing.
#4. We are permitting to exist an airline within an airline that is possibly going to be over half the size of SWA-- flying our pax.
#5. We are telling the company, the other airlines, and the world that we will sell our own jobs for a few bucks today, that we are for sale, and we can be had.
#6. We are turning our backs on what is very likely the only chance we will ever collectively have industry wide to put the scope genie back in the bottle.
Just some thoughts about scope-- that by allowing more 76 seat jets on the property, we are doing several detrimental things to ourselves.
#1. We are giving away our jobs, and once they are gone, they aren't ever coming back.
#2. We are permitting the creation and perpetuation of a sub-class of professionals who will do the same job for much less compensation and contractual protections.
#3. We are allowing, once again, the line to be drawn further down the field, keeping momentum on the side of outsourcing.
#4. We are permitting to exist an airline within an airline that is possibly going to be over half the size of SWA-- flying our pax.
#5. We are telling the company, the other airlines, and the world that we will sell our own jobs for a few bucks today, that we are for sale, and we can be had.
#6. We are turning our backs on what is very likely the only chance we will ever collectively have industry wide to put the scope genie back in the bottle.
#1. We are giving away our jobs, and once they are gone, they aren't ever coming back.
#2. We are permitting the creation and perpetuation of a sub-class of professionals who will do the same job for much less compensation and contractual protections.
#3. We are allowing, once again, the line to be drawn further down the field, keeping momentum on the side of outsourcing.
#4. We are permitting to exist an airline within an airline that is possibly going to be over half the size of SWA-- flying our pax.
#5. We are telling the company, the other airlines, and the world that we will sell our own jobs for a few bucks today, that we are for sale, and we can be had.
#6. We are turning our backs on what is very likely the only chance we will ever collectively have industry wide to put the scope genie back in the bottle.
Well said. The whole thing, but the last two points are so important.
Folks are talking about positives and tiny miniscule changes that might make this pass.
It should NEVER NEVER EVER pass. It should NEVER HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED BY DALPA!!!
Thank you. Bar's source is himself, DOT data and a calculator. Figure out the numbers and you know where management's looking. In any defense play, watch the eyes.
Don't get me started on 777-300's once we get our balance sheet fixed by flipping leases and capacity purchase contract modifications. I have not finished that homework yet.
Don't get me started on 777-300's once we get our balance sheet fixed by flipping leases and capacity purchase contract modifications. I have not finished that homework yet.
I like our whales. Fun to look at it. Still can't figure out why we don't use real video of them taking off in commercials.
I think it's become pretty clear by now (the UAL Chairman's memo, the 717 purchase, the non-contract employee raises) that this TA is the spearhead of an industry wide effort to contain labor costs, with DALPA, knowingly or not, facilitating the effort. C'mon, does anybody think the non-contract employees will get anything other than 4-8-3-3? A 10 cent per diem increase with a corresponding reduction in profit sharing?! Why must we be tied to FA compensation? To regional airline fleet plans? To ALPA member hiring quotas? To having to pay for re-fleeting mainline?
... and what about retro pay? All this talk of time value of money... Is DALPA basically saying that they will break with past precedent and NOT demand retro pay from amendable date?? Even if you retire, you still get a retro check if the pay rate increase for the hours you flew... do you not?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




